Latest news with #post-Pahalgam
The Wire
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Wire
Modi Govt Posting ‘Outsiders', ‘Jettisoning of Local Officers' Led to Pahalgam Intel Failure: J&K Human Rights Forum
The forum notes in its report that post-Pahalgam attack, the situation has worsened in J&K, despite the fact that Kashmiri people condemned the Pahalgam attack and repudiated the terrorists goals to foment Hindu-Muslim polarisation and instability. New Delhi: The Forum for Human Rights in Jammu and Kashmir (FHRJK) – an informal group of concerned citizens that includes the likes of former Union home secretary Gopal Pillai, former Supreme Court judges Madan Lokur and Ruma Pal, former chief justice of Delhi and Madras high court A.P. Shah, and former member of group of interlocutors for Jammu and Kashmir Radha Kumar – in its recently released report has placed the blame entirely on the Narendra Modi government for the 'return of cross-border militancy' in Kashmir. 'The Union Home Ministry's policy of placing non-State officers ('outsiders') to helm civilian security and governance' and 'jettisoning of experienced local officers' that followed as a result of the Narendra Modi government's unilateral decision to reorganise Jammu and Kashmir as a union territory and concentrate power in its own hands 'entailed a paucity of intelligence from the ground and contributed to the security lapses that allowed cross-border militancy to return to the Pir Panjal and Chenab valley areas of Jammu from 2020-2021 on, and then allowed it to spread to Kashmir…,' the report states. 'It contributed, too, to the failure to prevent the Pahalgam terrorist attack,' it adds. The 2025 report is the sixth annual report released by the FHRJK, which was formed after the Union government diluted Article 370 and reorganised Jammu and Kashmir. Compiled on the basis of government sources, media accounts, NGO fact-finding reports, interviews and information gathered through legal petitions, the report notes that in spite of the assembly elections in September-October 2024, the people of the union territory continue to feel disempowered. It says that the Transaction of Business Rules issued by the Union home ministry on July 12, 2024, months ahead of the assembly elections, ensured that the Union government retained most of the administrative powers in J&K through the Lieutenant-Governor and held control over 'civil servants, the police, the Attorney-General, and prosecutorial services'. The report states that the extent of the Union government's control could be gauged from the fact that soon after the Omar Abdullah government came to power with a comprehensive majority, the L-G returned his proposal for 'allocation of portfolios to Ministers and establishment of a mechanism to resolve difference of opinion between the elected and centrally appointed administrations, with queries as to whether it was in accordance with the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act of 2019.' It further notes that post-Pahalgam attack, the situation has worsened in J&K, as despite the fact that Kashmiri people condemned the Pahalgam attack and repudiated the terrorists goals to foment Hindu-Muslim polarisation and instability, the police investigators hastily announced the involvement of two Kashmiris in the attack, only to retract later. However, in the meantime, the evidence-less declaration resulted in a pan-India backlash against Kashmiris, the report says. 'Allegedly, over 2,800 people have been detained or summoned for questioning and over 100 have been arrested under the draconian Public Safety Act (PSA) and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). There are daily cordon and search operations as well as raids; continuing purges of local officers; intimidation of the media, and other scantily verified or unjustified harassments detailed in this report's section on civilian security,' the report says, adding that 'the post-Pahalgam environment, which was widely conducive to the re-establishment of peace building initiatives, is thus already being vitiated.' The report goes on to recommend that such 'vitiation of civil and political rights, including oversight institutions' can be contained only by granting the promised statehood to the union territory. Yet, there are still no signs by the Modi government of 'fulfilling its promise', even after several MPs demanding restoration of statehood in J&K in the run-up to the monsoon session of the parliament. The forum has demanded a rollback of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, and an immediate discussion between Ladakhi representatives and the Union government on demands of Ladakh's statehood and its incorporation in the Sixth Schedule, too. Pahalgam security lapse The report found that there was 'a major security lapse by the Lieutenant-Governor's administration and the Union Home Ministry' in the case of Pahalgam terror attack. The report confirmed that intelligence warning of an attack was 'received in actionable time' but the security reviews were both 'feeble and incompetent'. A Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) picket close to the Baisaran meadow, where the attack took place, was removed in January, 2025, the report notes, and was not reinstated even after intelligence inputs about a possible attack. Further, the FHRJK found that 'the responsibility of Union home minister Amit Shah remains to be acknowledged' as he 'personally supervised repeated security reviews following the intelligence that an attack was being planned'. The report also holds the Union gvoernment accountable for not preventing a backlash against Kashmiris in various parts of India and allowing hate speech and hateful actions against them in the aftermath of Pahalgam terror attack. The FHRJK expressed concern about Pakistani military response to 'Operation Sindoor' that it thought 'revealed a new level of China-Pakistan defence cooperation' that included not only supply of arms but also 'onsite guidance by Chinese military-strategic personnel'. This, the report says, deviates from China's earlier stance of non-involvement in the India-Pakistan conflict, and can add to India's challenges in the context of 'China's encroachments in Ladakh'. Despite the Union government increasing expenditure on security in J&K, amounting to Rs 1347.79 crores, the FHRJK believes that merely enhancing security measures could be ineffective as the Pahalgam incident showed. '...the immediate and past lessons of counterinsurgency are being ignored. As our own experience has repeatedly shown, armed attacks dwindle only when the local people and their elected representatives are involved in peace building on the ground, and when security forces are seen to adhere to the human rights guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in 1997, which were included in the Indian Army's 'List of Dos and Don'ts' under the Armed Forces (Special Protection) Act,' the report says. Apart from pressing for restoration of statehood for J&K and Ladakh, the FHRJK recommended opening a dialogue between parliamentarians and members of legislative assembly on the special status of J&K and reinstating J&K's oversight commissions like the Human Rights Commission, the Women's Commission, the Accountability Commission and the Information Commission which were shut down after Article 370 was hollowed out. The FHRJK is chaired by former Union home secretary Gopal Pillai and former member of group of interlocutors Radha Kumar, and its members are: Justice Ruma Pal, former judge of the Supreme Court of India Justice Madan Lokur, former judge of the Supreme Court of India Justice AP Shah, former Chief Justice of the Madras and Delhi High Courts Justice Bilal Nazki, former Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court Justice Hasnain Masoodi, former judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Justice Anjana Prakash, former judge of the Patna High Court Probir Sen, former Secretary-General, National Human Rights Commission Amitabha Pande, former Secretary, Inter-State Council, Government of India Moosa Raza, former Chief Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir Shantha Sinha, former chairperson, National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights Major-General Ashok Mehta (retd) Air Vice-Marshal Kapil Kak (retd) Lieutenant-General H S Panag (retd) Colonel Yoginder Kandhari (retd) Enakshi Ganguly, Co-founder and former Co-director, HAQ Centre for Child Rights Ramachandra Guha, writer and historian Anand Sahay, columnist Shivani Sanghvi, lawyer Abhishek Babbar, lawyer The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
The Wire
6 days ago
- Politics
- The Wire
Modi Govt Responsible for 'Return of Cross-Border Militancy': J&K Human Rights Forum
The forum notes in its report that post-Pahalgam attack, the situation has worsened in J&K, despite the fact that Kashmiri people condemned the Pahalgam attack and repudiated the terrorists goals to foment Hindu-Muslim polarisation and instability. New Delhi: The Forum for Human Rights in Jammu and Kashmir (FHRJK) – an informal group of concerned citizens that includes the likes of former Union home secretary Gopal Pillai, former Supreme Court judges Madan Lokur and Ruma Pal, former chief justice of Delhi and Madras high court A.P. Shah, and former member of group of interlocutors for Jammu and Kashmir Radha Kumar – in its recently released report has placed the blame entirely on the Narendra Modi government for the 'return of cross-border militancy' in Kashmir. 'The Union Home Ministry's policy of placing non-State officers ('outsiders') to helm civilian security and governance' and 'jettisoning of experienced local officers' that followed as a result of the Narendra Modi government's unilateral decision to reorganise Jammu and Kashmir as a union territory and concentrate power in its own hands 'entailed a paucity of intelligence from the ground and contributed to the security lapses that allowed cross-border militancy to return to the Pir Panjal and Chenab valley areas of Jammu from 2020-2021 on, and then allowed it to spread to Kashmir…,' the report states. 'It contributed, too, to the failure to prevent the Pahalgam terrorist attack,' it adds. The 2025 report is the sixth annual report released by the FHRJK, which was formed after the Union government diluted Article 370 and reorganised Jammu and Kashmir. Compiled on the basis of government sources, media accounts, NGO fact-finding reports, interviews and information gathered through legal petitions, the report notes that in spite of the assembly elections in September-October 2024, the people of the union territory continue to feel disempowered. It says that the Transaction of Business Rules issued by the Union home ministry on July 12, 2024, months ahead of the assembly elections, ensured that the Union government retained most of the administrative powers in J&K through the Lieutenant-Governor and held control over 'civil servants, the police, the Attorney-General, and prosecutorial services'. The report states that the extent of the Union government's control could be gauged from the fact that soon after the Omar Abdullah government came to power with a comprehensive majority, the L-G returned his proposal for 'allocation of portfolios to Ministers and establishment of a mechanism to resolve difference of opinion between the elected and centrally appointed administrations, with queries as to whether it was in accordance with the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act of 2019.' It further notes that post-Pahalgam attack, the situation has worsened in J&K, as despite the fact that Kashmiri people condemned the Pahalgam attack and repudiated the terrorists goals to foment Hindu-Muslim polarisation and instability, the police investigators hastily announced the involvement of two Kashmiris in the attack, only to retract later. However, in the meantime, the evidence-less declaration resulted in a pan-India backlash against Kashmiris, the report says. 'Allegedly, over 2,800 people have been detained or summoned for questioning and over 100 have been arrested under the draconian Public Safety Act (PSA) and Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). There are daily cordon and search operations as well as raids; continuing purges of local officers; intimidation of the media, and other scantily verified or unjustified harassments detailed in this report's section on civilian security,' the report says, adding that 'the post-Pahalgam environment, which was widely conducive to the re-establishment of peace building initiatives, is thus already being vitiated.' The report goes on to recommend that such 'vitiation of civil and political rights, including oversight institutions' can be contained only by granting the promised statehood to the union territory. Yet, there are still no signs by the Modi government of 'fulfilling its promise', even after several MPs demanding restoration of statehood in J&K in the run-up to the monsoon session of the parliament. The forum has demanded a rollback of the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019, and an immediate discussion between Ladakhi representatives and the Union government on demands of Ladakh's statehood and its incorporation in the Sixth Schedule, too. Pahalgam security lapse The report found that there was 'a major security lapse by the Lieutenant-Governor's administration and the Union Home Ministry' in the case of Pahalgam terror attack. The report confirmed that intelligence warning of an attack was 'received in actionable time' but the security reviews were both 'feeble and incompetent'. A Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) picket close to the Baisaran meadow, where the attack took place, was removed in January, 2025, the report notes, and was not reinstated even after intelligence inputs about a possible attack. Further, the FHRJK found that 'the responsibility of Union home minister Amit Shah remains to be acknowledged' as he 'personally supervised repeated security reviews following the intelligence that an attack was being planned'. The report also holds the Union gvoernment accountable for not preventing a backlash against Kashmiris in various parts of India and allowing hate speech and hateful actions against them in the aftermath of Pahalgam terror attack. The FHRJK expressed concern about Pakistani military response to 'Operation Sindoor' that it thought 'revealed a new level of China-Pakistan defence cooperation' that included not only supply of arms but also 'onsite guidance by Chinese military-strategic personnel'. This, the report says, deviates from China's earlier stance of non-involvement in the India-Pakistan conflict, and can add to India's challenges in the context of 'China's encroachments in Ladakh'. Despite the Union government increasing expenditure on security in J&K, amounting to Rs 1347.79 crores, the FHRJK believes that merely enhancing security measures could be ineffective as the Pahalgam incident showed. '...the immediate and past lessons of counterinsurgency are being ignored. As our own experience has repeatedly shown, armed attacks dwindle only when the local people and their elected representatives are involved in peace building on the ground, and when security forces are seen to adhere to the human rights guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in 1997, which were included in the Indian Army's 'List of Dos and Don'ts' under the Armed Forces (Special Protection) Act,' the report says. Apart from pressing for restoration of statehood for J&K and Ladakh, the FHRJK recommended opening a dialogue between parliamentarians and members of legislative assembly on the special status of J&K and reinstating J&K's oversight commissions like the Human Rights Commission, the Women's Commission, the Accountability Commission and the Information Commission which were shut down after Article 370 was hollowed out. The FHRJK is chaired by former Union home secretary Gopal Pillai and former member of group of interlocutors Radha Kumar, and its members are: Justice Ruma Pal, former judge of the Supreme Court of India Justice Madan Lokur, former judge of the Supreme Court of India Justice AP Shah, former Chief Justice of the Madras and Delhi High Courts Justice Bilal Nazki, former Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court Justice Hasnain Masoodi, former judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court Justice Anjana Prakash, former judge of the Patna High Court Probir Sen, former Secretary-General, National Human Rights Commission Amitabha Pande, former Secretary, Inter-State Council, Government of India Moosa Raza, former Chief Secretary, Government of Jammu and Kashmir Shantha Sinha, former chairperson, National Commission for the Protection of Child Rights Major-General Ashok Mehta (retd) Air Vice-Marshal Kapil Kak (retd) Lieutenant-General H S Panag (retd) Colonel Yoginder Kandhari (retd) Enakshi Ganguly, Co-founder and former Co-director, HAQ Centre for Child Rights Ramachandra Guha, writer and historian Anand Sahay, columnist Shivani Sanghvi, lawyer Abhishek Babbar, lawyer The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
NDTV
04-08-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
" Ek Chutki Sindoor...": Rekha Gupta's "Filmy" Swipe At Jaya Bachchan
New Delhi: The opening day of the Delhi Assembly's Monsoon Session saw sharp political exchanges as Chief Minister Rekha Gupta launched a scathing attack on the Opposition, accusing it of historical negligence on national security and questioning its stance on recent military operations, including Operation Sindoor and Operation Mahadev. "This wasn't just a military operation, it was about honouring our martyrs," Ms Gupta said during a debate on the Centre's recent actions. She was responding to the Opposition's remarks over the naming of Operation Sindoor, particularly remarks made in Parliament by Samajwadi Party MP Jaya Bachchan. "She asked why the operation was named Sindoor. I will answer her with a filmy dialogue - "' Ek chutki Sindoor ki kimat tum kya jano? ' (You don't know the value of a pinch of vermilion)." Ms Bachchan had questioned why India's retaliatory action post-Pahalgam attack was named "Operation Sindoor", when women were widowed in the incident and actually "lost their sindoor". The Chief Minister levelled a series of questions at the Opposition, referencing decisions made by previous governments during major national security events. "When Pakistan occupied Kashmir, why didn't they take responsibility? Why didn't they take responsibility for Partition? For the war with China? Why was the 1965 war halted and taken to the UN? In 1971, 93,000 Pakistani soldiers were captured- why were they released unconditionally? Why was the Shimla Agreement signed? Why didn't they own up to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots or the stone-pelting in Kashmir?" she asked. Hitting out at the Congress-led INDIA bloc, Ms Gupta said, "These leaders have formed a team, but when they speak, it's hard to tell whether they represent India, Pakistan, or America". "The so-called 'national sister' talks about taking credit. But their actions speak otherwise." She further alleged that the Opposition has shown alignment with disruptive forces: "They don't love India, they trust anti-national forces." Assembly Disruption: AAP MLA Marshalled Out Earlier, the house witnessed chaos when AAP MLA Sanjeev Jha attacked Prime Minister Narendra Modi over Operation Sindoor. Speaker Vijender Gupta immediately intervened, objecting to his choice of words, directing that they would not remain on record. He also ordered the marshal to "escort him out". The Speaker later confirmed the remarks had been expunged from the Assembly proceedings. Mr Jha's comments came during his speech on national security, triggering protests from BJP MLAs and warnings from the Chair. The MLA was escorted out of the House following repeated refusals to withdraw his statement. Leadership, Legacy, and a Divided House Chief Minister Rekha Gupta ended her address by defending the government's record on national security and countering criticism from the opposition. "In 2016, during the surgical strikes, they demanded proof, and we gave it. We brought back Abhinandan (Varthaman). The opposition will always find something to criticise," she said. "This is not the India of pre-2014. Whenever storms threatened the nation, (PM) Modi stood like a shield. He is not just a leader, he is a symbol of light," Ms Gupta told the House. The day concluded with the Assembly deeply polarised, one side questioning the legacy of past governments, the other challenging the narrative around recent military operations.
NDTV
04-08-2025
- Politics
- NDTV
Cambodia To Nominate Donald Trump For Nobel Peace Prize: What It Means
Cambodia will nominate US President Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, Deputy Prime Minister Sun Chanthol confirmed on Friday. The announcement follows Trump's reported intervention in ending recent border clashes between Cambodia and Thailand. Trump's call last week reportedly broke a diplomatic deadlock, leading to a ceasefire brokered in Malaysia. "He deserves to be nominated," Sun Chanthol said, as per Reuters. Cambodia joins Pakistan and Israel in backing Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. In June, Pakistan credited his role in easing post-Pahalgam terror attack tensions with India. A day after Pakistan's announcement, Trump ordered airstrikes on Iran. Last month, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a nomination letter to Trump during a meeting. Earlier, in a Truth Social post, Trump wrote, "I won't get a Nobel Peace Prize for this... but the people know, and that's all that matters to me," referencing his role in multiple international peace efforts, including the Abraham Accords and de-escalations in Africa and the Middle East. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt last week called to "give him the Nobel Peace Prize." She said Trump brokered about one peace deal or ceasefire per month since January, citing conflicts including India-Pakistan and Cambodia-Thailand. How The Nomination Works The Nobel Prize is awarded through a confidential process. Only qualified individuals, such as lawmakers, professors, past laureates, and members of international organisations, can submit nominations by January 31. The Norwegian Nobel Committee, a five-member body appointed by Norway's parliament, reviews all entries, consults experts, and prepares a shortlist. After thorough deliberation, the committee selects a winner by majority vote. The prize is announced in October and awarded on December 10, Alfred Nobel's death anniversary. Self-nominations are not allowed. Can A Country Nominate Trump For The Nobel Peace Prize? A nation can effectively nominate someone like Donald Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize, but only through individuals authorised to do so under Nobel rules. Heads of state, members of national governments, and national assemblies are among those eligible to submit nominations for the Peace Prize. So, if a country's prime minister, president, or government official nominates Trump, it would be considered valid. In 1939, a Swedish MP nominated Adolf Hitler, and the nomination was later withdrawn. The full list of nominees remains confidential for 50 years. Presidents And Prime Ministers To Win The Nobel Peace Prize Several presidents and prime ministers have won the Nobel Peace Prize for their roles in resolving conflicts and promoting peace. US Presidents Theodore Roosevelt (1906), Woodrow Wilson (1919), and Barack Obama (2009) were awarded for diplomacy and international cooperation. Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev won in 1990 for helping end the Cold War. In 1994, Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat received the prize for the Oslo Accords. Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed was honoured in 2019 for ending the conflict with Eritrea.
The Hindu
01-08-2025
- Business
- The Hindu
Letters to The Editor — August 2, 2025
Misplaced remark U.S. President Donald Trump's remark, calling India a 'dead economy', is both inaccurate and disappointing, especially when leading global institutions continue to recognise India as among the fastest-growing major economies. That the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank have all projected India's economic stability is a clear indication of economic vitality, not decline. With a young and dynamic population — in sharp contrast to aging demographics and slowing growth in many advanced economies, India's demographic strength, combined with prudent macroeconomic policies and digital advancement, positions it as a key driver of future global growth. Mr. Trump's comments appear to be politically charged rather than fact-based. Rukma Sharma, Jalandhar, Punjab What is odious is that Mr. Trump did not stop with just announcing tariffs. He has revived the U.S's old myopic game of trying to maintain a geo-political strategic balance in South Asia by supporting Pakistan, India's war-happy neighbour. One cannot but notice the fact that Mr Trump has been upping the ante against India ever since it successfully carried out post-Pahalgam retaliatory strikes against Pakistan's terror infrastructure. That India proved its military prowess with minimum collateral damage and the use of indigenous armaments has not gone down well with the Trump administration. Nalini Vijayaraghavan, Thiruvananthapuram The cartoon (Inside pages, 'On the draw' August 1), on Mr. Trump's decision, may be a correct portrayal. The U.S. President is publicity savvy and wants to take the credit when it comes to all major global events. He wants the Nobel Prize and has shamelessly expressed his desire. He is just another politician and not a statesman. Imposing shockingly high tariffs will hurt the business of the exporters to the United States of America, which will, in turn, affect the economies of many countries. Mr. Trump does not care one bit about the sufferings of others. He is whimsical, which is a bad trait for anyone in power. Here is an elected leader who is an example of how one should not be. V. Lakshmanan, Tirupur, Tamil Nadu One cannot help notice these contrasts — ISRO and NASA have successfully launched their NISAR satellite into orbit, which highlights the power of science and cooperation, but the U.S. President seems intent on giving pinpricks to India and the Indian government. One wonders how things will play out. Dhanaraj S., Bodinayakanur, Tamil Nadu The debate in Parliament The parliamentary debate on Operation Sindoor unfolded as expected, with few surprises. The ruling party remained determined to portray the operation as an unqualified success, while key questions raised by the Opposition were left unanswered. Vital issues deserving serious deliberation such as Mr. Trump's repeated claims of brokering a ceasefire, and the alarming security lapses in Pahalgam were largely ignored. From the outset, the ruling party's reluctance to engage in a substantive debate was unmistakable. Repeated references to events under the past dispensation did little more than deflect attention from the core concerns. One can only hope that future parliamentary discussions will rise above partisan posturing and offer genuine, meaningful exchanges. V. Nagarajan, Chennai Civic responsibility India-Bangladesh relations may be strained but there are areas of policy in that country which may be worth considering in India. I recently came across a video on YouTube, on an organisation called BD Clean ( It is a platform of 50,000 volunteers who work with the aim of ensuring a clean Bangladesh and bringing about a change in mentality in the disposal of garbage. The transformation in the country has been spectacular with heavily polluted areas undergoing remarkable transformations. It is an idea that is worth emulating in Indian cities and towns. V. Subramaniam, Chennai
